§ 3.17 p.m.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the loss to the export trade which will be occasioned both directly and indirectly as a result of their refusal to export any arms to South Africa.]
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government's decision to continue unchanged the arms embargo policy towards South Africa, which has been implemented since November, 1964, and which is in line with United Nations Security Council resolutions, took the economic as well as all the other implications fully into account. The value of the South African orders for defence equipment which might have been placed in this country had this policy been changed is impossible to assess. Her Majesty's Government have no reason to expect that exports to South Africa of other goods will be affected. Indeed, we hope and expect that, with the advantage given by devaluation, our exports to South Africa will continue to increase.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, could the noble Lord, arising out of that Answer, say that a direct loss of about £200 million might have been incurred through the refusal to supply arms, some of which I think are now being supplied by France? Furthermore, when he says that he does not expect any indirect loss to occur through this policy, does that take any account of the annoyance and anger that have been aroused by the refusal to export arms to a country which is allowing us to use her ports to an increasing amount because of the closure of the Suez Canal, and that a good deal of anti-British sentiment, which will find its way into withholding orders from this country, is being built up for a so-called moral reason which many people regard as pretty questionable? Could the noble Lord also tell me, in connection with this matter, how one uses a submarine, for instance, in Johannesburg to put down a civil riot?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, in the first place the question about submarines and civil uprisings is totally irrelevant to the question of Her Majesty's Government's policy. When the noble Lord mentions a sum of money that has been involved in this whole policy—and I repeat, it is a continuation of a policy, not a new policy—this is, I presume, a calculation of his own, it certainly is not a figure that has any official status. We always accepted that an arms embargo must lead to some loss of trade, but I would ask the noble Lord and your Lordships' House to believe that there is far more at stake in the supply of arms to South Africa than a simple acceptance or rejection of a particular arms order. I can also assure the noble Lord that all the factors he has mentioned—political factors, economic factors and moral factors—were taken into account when Her Majesty's Government decided to continue this policy.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has considered the declaration by the South African Government that they may bring the whole of the Simonstown Agreement to an end, with the result that this country may lose the use of the ports which are so invaluable to us? And what action has been taken to ensure that we shall continue to have the use of those ports—not just Simonstown, but Durban and Cape Town, Which were worth more than a million tons to us during the war?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I can only say that Her Majesty's Government have received no approach from the South African Government on any of those points. The noble Earl will be aware, I am sure, that the Simonstown Agreement imposes no specific obligation upon us whatsoever to supply defence equipment, other than certain vessels which were supplied before the embargo was introduced. I am aware that the South African Prime Minister has said that he will look anew at the Simonstown Agreement in the light of the decision to continue our arms embargo. But I must tell your Lordships' House that we have, as I say, received no approach of this kind from the South African Government.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the 871 Government have made any assessment of the loss involved in regard to the export trade, as the Question asks? The noble Lord has given no figure at all. If there is any assessment, can we know what it is? If there is no assessment, could not the Government find out?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the fact that no assessment of this cost has been publicly announced does not necessarily mean that Her Majesty's Government have not made one. Requests from foreign Governments for defence equipment are normally confidential, and I cannot reveal to the House details of the items about which the South African Government made its inquiries in the first place. Therefore, so far as the arms argument is concerned I can give no figure; but so far as other exports to South Africa are concerned, I am sure it will be a matter of common knowledge to your Lordships' House that since this embargo was first imposed in 1964 our trade with South Africa has increased yearly.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I asked the noble Lord about the loss to the export trade, and whether he knows the figure; and if the Government know the figure, is there any reason why Parliament should not be told? I have not asked him about the breakdown of the figure, but can he not give the total? It really does not suffice to say, "We know it, but we are not going to tell you".
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, as I have said, the question of a loss to the export trade is irrelevant, because since the arms embargo was applied—
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, that is the Question on the Order Paper.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, as I was saying, since the arms embargo was applied our exports to South Africa have increased, not decreased. If the noble and learned Viscount is asking a specific question about a specific inquiry from the South African Government about arms, as a result of which we decided to continue the present policy, then I am afraid I cannot make that figure public.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I was not asking that. I was merely asking the noble Lord to answer the Ques- 872 tion on the Order Paper, which he has not done.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, is not the reason for not replying that the Government are afraid to give the figures, in view of the great shock it would be to the country to see how much we have lost?
§ BARONESS GAITSKELLMy Lords, would not the Minister agree that this passionate request for arms to South Africa from members of the Opposition simply ignores our moral reputation in the whole of the Afro-Asian world? If any noble Lords had been in the United Nations and had heard the proceedings there they would realise that our reputation would have become absolutely disreputable if we had reinstated arms for South Africa.
§ LORD MOYNIHANMy Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, notice that these remarks are coming only from one section of the Opposition?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am grateful for those most recent interventions, but I must take issue with the noble Viscount opposite when he suggests that I have not answered the Question on the Order Paper. If he will look at the Question on the Order Paper he will see that I answered it by saying:
The value of the South African orders for defence equipment which might have been placed in this country had this policy been changed is impossible to assess.That is the answer to the Question on the Order Paper.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that our previous policy up to 1964 of supplying only arms which could not be used to deal with civil disturbance, was perfectly satisfactory, reasonable, and moral in world opinion? Is he aware that those nations in the United Nations who objected did not themselves ever have to send, or want to send, any kind of weapons to South Africa? And is he aware that there is no reasonable, rational justification for refusing to supply South Africa with arms which are necessary for her defence against overseas aggression?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I cannot, of course, answer for policies or interpretations that were made before Her Majesty's Government decided to 873 continue with our present policy. I can only say that our policy is fully in line with a United Nations resolution, and that in deciding to continue it we took all the factors into account.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, can the noble Lord inform someone who really does wish to follow the moral principle involved, why it is right to refuse arms to a country to resist external aggression, but right to supply arms to a country for the purpose of conducting a civil war?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am not entirely sure of the fine point of that question. I am sure it will come home to me later. All I can say is that the reason that we have decided to continue this policy is that we have subscribed to a United Nations resolution on this subject, and we are anxious to abide by it.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, I should like to ask a quite moderate question: it will not be provocative in any way. I should like the noble Lord to give us an assurance that he realises the importance of Cape Town to this country to-day, having regard to the closure of the Suez Canal, and that he will do his best to facilitate agreement between this country and South Africa, because we are both completely dependent upon each other and if things went really wrong it would do almost as much damage to us as it would do to them. I simply want him to realise the amount of traffic—
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, would the noble Lord give way?
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, I will not make a speech. I will sit down.
§ LORD SHACKLETONWould the noble Lord care to give way?
§ LORD BOOTHBYDoes the noble Lord want me to sit down?
§ LORD SHACKLETONYes.
§ LORD BOOTHBYI am delighted to sit down.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I think the rest of the House shares the noble Lord's feelings on that matter. It would be helpful if he could ask a question. We have gone into this matter at 874 some length. The House is most tolerant, but there is a point beyond which it feels a little less tolerant, and I feel that the noble Lord was rather near that point.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, as the Government cannot make any assessment of the cost of their policy, may we take it that they will pursue it relentlessly, however much the loss may be? Is that the position?